Another “Move To The Center”?
Via Joe Carter, this article on intelligence policy under the next administration should (I hope!) give our Obama fans pause:
President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.
Civil-liberties groups were among those outraged that the White House sanctioned the use of harsh intelligence techniques — which some consider torture — by the Central Intelligence Agency, and expanded domestic spy powers. These groups are demanding quick action to reverse these policies.
Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.
“He’s going to take a very centrist approach to these issues,” said Roger Cressey, a former counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations. “Whenever an administration swings too far on the spectrum left or right, we end up getting ourselves in big trouble.”
Ah, there’s that wonderfully flexible word for “flexible” politicians–pragmatist! Pragmatists who can “get things done” by treating people as things. Of course, we must always have a “centrist” approach, which means an approach least likely to challenge established practices. It is as if opposition to torture was not the position that commands the broad middle of reasonable opinion. We don’t want Obama going off on some crazy jag about human dignity–who knows where that might lead?
5 Responses to “Another “Move To The Center”?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I think we should wait to see what Obama actually does when he’s President, rather than presume to know ahead of time. I would certainly expect him to move cautiously on these matters, so as not to alienate the intelligence community, but he’s already announced he’s closing Guantanamo, which suggests he’s making good on his earlier objections to these abuses. I would expect not sudden, sweeping changes, but a gradual pullback over time. But I wouldn’t want to deny you the pleasures of your advance cynicism, of criticizing Obama ahead of time for things he hasn’t yet not done.
According to the article, these are his advisors who are saying this about what Obama is likely and unlikely to do. Maybe Obama will ignore them and go in a different direction, but it is hardly reassuring that the first indications we’re getting are that he doesn’t intend to change much at all in this area.
“Mr. Obama is being advised largely by a group of intelligence professionals, including some who have supported Republicans, and centrist former officials in the Clinton administration. They say he is likely to fill key intelligence posts with pragmatists.”
I suppose President Elect Obama could be stacking his intelligence advisors with those who are at least comfortable with current torture policies, and then doing a massive head-fake by signing an executive order unquivically banning the practice on 01/20/09, but that would leave a rump of officials whose support he will need feeling embittered from the get go. We’ll see.
I dunno, Daniel. Like you I expect Obama will disappoint his more ardent followers, but this story seems pretty weak tea to me. We get one advisor, Cressey, saying his policy will be “centrist,” whatever exactly that means, and then…well, some bios of possible types who might go to work for the administration, an old quote from John Brennan, and the odd piece of speculation by one unidentified “current government official” that Obama might flip flop on torture because he, um, well, flip-flopped on FISA, right?
Of course, none of this has stopped some members of the progressive rank-and-file from having a little freak-out fest over the story, as John Cole notes here:
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=13718
They’re none too happy that Obama hasn’t demanded Joe Lieberman’s head on platter, either…
Daniel, yes, they are “advisors”, but this is very, very early in the game of formulating policy, and we don’t know which advisors these are, how much responsibility they have, and just what “centrist” really means in practical terms. As said, I’d expect Obama to me gradually on this matter, so as not to ruffle many feathers in the defense side, especially since he has to appear strong on defense while withdrawing from Iraq. But as said, the actual announcement he’s made in this area of policy, as opposed to the mumblings of some unknown advisors, is that he’s closing Guantanamo, getting strict on abusive interrogation techniques, and generally making it known that he won’t tolerate excesses. I think you have to realize that it took eight years to build up this regime, and it won’t be undone overnight. Now, you have every right to watch Obama like a hawk and see what he actually does in this area during his administration. We all should. And Obama should be held to the same standards we tried to hold Bush to. But the mere fact that Obama’s people are talking about this displays an admirable openness that is in stark contrast to the strict secrecy that allowed Bush to construct this regime over the last eight years. That alone is probably the most positive development Obama could make, in that allowing us to see what is going on is the best way to prevent abuse and move to close down all the abuses that have been institutionalized over these last eight years.